News:

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!We hope you had a blessed Pascha and Bright Week. The OCNet Forum is operating in “Beta Mode” due to a major systems upgrade. A maintenance window is currently in effect and users should expect downtime starting at 0300 EDT on Friday the 24th of May.

I do not know if this has already been brought up, but in searching for more information on Saint Hermenegild, I ran accross the website for the "Synod of Milan" - http://www.odox.net/Synod.htm, which has an Icon and a little info on Saint Heremenegild.

Anyway, I was curious as to know if this was a valid Orthodox Church. I do not know if "valid" is the right word, but I suspect that the "Synod of Milan" is just a vagante group, but I could be wrong, so I thought I'd check.

Thanks!

p.s. If anyone has more info on Saint Hermenegild, please let me know, I recently learned of him, and I am very interested!

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

The Synod of Milan is a Western Orthodox Church Synod and ia another one of the dubiously connected orthodox churches. It would probably be considered to be a Vagante church however with no claim to the papal throne being made, it sees itself as an Orthodox Church. It has a patriarch who is seated in Milan, Italy. It has a few parishes in the US, one being St Mary's in Austin Texas. One of their bishop's resides at St Hilarion's Monastery there. As I understand it, the group in Texas was originally under the Old Catholics, became "orthodox" and then affiliated with the Milan Synod.

Their website, like many of these "orthodox" churches makes great effort to show apostolic succession but one will find the apostolic succession to be more a hodgepodge mixture of various old calendar jurisdictions, none of which will currently recognize themselves to be in communion with the synod.

The St Hilarion's website is a wealth of western orthodox material including excellent translations of early English Rites and Services. The American branch of this jurisdiction uses the Sarum Rite. Their Calendar of Saints and icons of Western Orthodox Saints is impressive. The monastery consists of fewer than five monks and novices (the last time I checked it consisted of 3)But sadly they are of dubious orthodox origin and not in communion with other Orthodox churches, old calendar or new calendar. Greek and Antiochian Orthodox priests in Austin have attempted to bring them into the Orthodox Church but they have as of yet been unwilling to submit to the Church.

I used to be in contact (it is so often via the internet to lose correspondence with someone- unfortunately) with a Bishop of the Milan Synod who if I remember correctly was based in Austria or somewhere in Central Europe. He was quite fluent in Rumanian, Church Slavonic, German and English (french maybe?) as well as Latin I assume. Anyway His Emminence was very eager to 'align' his Church with other more 'mainstream' Orthodox Churches. This all occurred when I was living in Australia years ago. I know he was in correspondence with some Bishops there as well as in Canada and Rumania.

Once again my opinion would be rather than belittle the authenticity of other branches of Orthodoxy shouldn't we work towards the communion of them? And note, here I use the term communion in a non-ecclesiastical manner.

The problem ,as I understand it, is that although the Milan Synod sees itself as Orthodox, it currently is not in communion with any other orthodox jurisdiction. I agree the scholarship done by the monastery in Austin is great and their Calendar of Western Rite Orthodox Saints is the most complete available anywhere-- but there is a caution----while they say they are Orthodox, they are not currently viewed as Orthodox by any of the jurisdictions that had a hand in their original apostolic ordinations. Are they Orthodox or not?

Actually I think they have legitimate apostolic succession from the True Orthodox Church of Greece. I could be wrong, but that was what I heard.

Well, a word or three should be said here about 'lines of apostolic succession' and how Eastern Orthodox think of them.

What you say might be true - if (and this is a big if) the bishops doing the consecrating weren't deposed by their Orthodox church.

But even if it is, as Thomas said they're not recognized as a church by any Orthodox one so, given the holistic and ecclesiological approach the Orthodox take to holy orders ('if it's not in the church, including not anymore, it doesn't mean anything to us'), their claim to such 'lines' doesn't mean anything in the Orthodox world.

Unless perhaps they wanted to return to an Orthodox church. Then chances are their bishops would be accepted in their orders simply owing to their return, and their priests and deacons retroactively recognized.

Vagantes are obsessed with getting and claiming these 'lines of succession' and talk about them incessantly - something 'real' churches such as the Assyrian, Oriental, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran churches that claim this succession don't do.

Quote

By the way, anyone who wants to know: the True Orthodox Churches of Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania were helped in their episcopal ordinations by the Russian Church Abroad.

Which seems to be a case of internal schism among the Orthodox where both sides, even though they're against each other, are somehow in the Orthodox communion. A group set up altar against altar vs. the Orthodox Churches of those Balkan countries but - thanks to its ties to the Churches of Serbia and Jerusalem - is itself still in the Orthodox club.

The Milan group are straight-arrow as far as vagantes go - they keep the Byzantine Rite and Orthodox theology and even their Western Rite experiment looks respectable. But ecclesiologically they don't make any sense.

They may be nice guys and good scholars, but they're not Eastern Orthodox.

But even if it is, as Thomas said they're not recognized as a church by any Orthodox one so, given the holistic and ecclesiological approach the Orthodox take to holy orders ('if it's not in the church, including not anymore, it doesn't mean anything to us'), their claim to such 'lines' doesn't mean anything in the Orthodox world.

. . .

Which seems to be a case of internal schism among the Orthodox where both sides, even though they're against each other, are somehow in the Orthodox communion. A group set up altar against altar vs. the Orthodox Churches of those Balkan countries but - thanks to its ties to the Churches of Serbia and Jerusalem - is itself still in the Orthodox club.

Could you explain tho this confused RCer how ecclesial communion works in the Orthodox Church? If Church A breaks communion with Church B, and Church B is in communion with all churches in communion with Church A, well, that pretty much makes sense.

However, if Church A decided that all the other Orthodox jurisdictions had fallen into heresy, and excommunicated them all, would they be "outside the club," which is now comprised only of Church A?

Or to put it more directly, is it possible for the interested outsider to determine what is the legitimate jurisdictional locus (or loci) of Orthodoxy?

A Church's Orthodoxy is determined by one thing... it's orthodoxy! There are a few attributes/characteristics that someone who is orthodox/Orthodox will have though. They will have at least one bishop with a flock (though sometimes a group can be left bishopless, but if this is the case, they can only be considered fully and unquestionably Orthodox for a time, since the Church revolves around a bishop and his flock... the other possibility of an Orthodox group without bishops is if it is the final days and years in the end times and all the bishops have died, been martyred, etc.). Orthodox will preserve the faith as taught by word or epistle. This means 1) preserving more than just some artificially constructed set of essentials, and 2) avoiding sectarian divisions over small issues. Obviously love is a key to being Orthodox. Apostolic succession is also important, though it is thought of as more than just a list of names in Orthodoxy. Those who are Orthodox follow the Scriptures and Tradition of the Church. Also, there are exceptions to this (e.g., Meletios of Antioch in the 4th century), but by-in-large the Orthodox also have legitimate canonical foundation/origin, and continue to follow the canons as best they can given their circumstances.

The Church is not built on a pentarcy, patriarchates, autocephalous churches, etc., athough many people will try to tell you that it is. These are only later administrative ideas that helped the Church organize better (we may appear chaotic, but we Orthodox aren't exactly unorganized religion).The Church, in a word, is an Orthodox bishop with an Orthodox flock living their Orthdodox life in Christ as they attempt to work out their salvation. One last thought, the biggest group is not always the right one. Many schisms happened in the 20th century, as just as in the 4th century, the largest groups were many times the most wrong.

Could you explain tho this confused RCer how ecclesial communion works in the Orthodox Church? If Church A breaks communion with Church B, and Church B is in communion with all churches in communion with Church A, well, that pretty much makes sense.

Something like that. Or Church A decides Church B isn't good enough to be in communion with, but Churches A and B are both in communion with Church C, which is in communion with all the other churches in the Orthodox club. Thus Church A is still in the club.

Quote

Or to put it more directly, is it possible for the interested outsider to determine what is the legitimate jurisdictional locus (or loci) of Orthodoxy?

Yes. Check out 'Portraits of the Patriarchs' here. If it's not under one of these men, it's not in the club.

Last night I edited my post so as not to say something against Serge, but since he again spoke the same error today, I think I had better come out with it. Serge is promoting something called neo-papal-patriarchalism. It is a grave ecclesiological error that is influenced by the need to have everything neat and orderly and in it's place, even at the expense of orthodoxy. You can find out about this error by searching Google or other search engines. I don't really feel like debating the point as I think I'd just say uncharitable things I'd later regret, in my attempt to defend the truth. There is no truth without love, so I must keep my mouth shut henceforth on this subject.

I think the matter here is Justin has arrogated to himself the right to reject the commonly understood Orthodox communion (to which most of you belong or at least identify with), judging it as not orthodox, while either still claiming to be Eastern Orthodox himself or even that his favourite church or sect at the moment (he's changed his mind a few times in the past couple of years) is the only Orthodox church left on earth. Making the same historical mistake as the Russian Old Believers: those who won't learn from history, etc.

God as He shows Himself in His creation is logical and orderly.

There's nothing magic or dogmatic about the pentarchy but the church in general was organized into patriarchates (including, in the form in which it existed at the time, Roman primacy) around the same time the hypostatic union was defined and definitely by the time the use of images in church was defended and dogmatized.

You can say patriarchates are only of the bene esse of the church while episcopacy is of the esse, but the Orthodox are sticklers for episcopacy functionally being only in the church, and they, the Orthodox, say groups like the Milan Synod, and the Greek Old Calendarists with whom Justin is infatuated right now, have stepped outside it.

I have no personal interest in Justin - I don't care for him online, have never met him and don't plan on meeting him. That said, underneath all his words the only person shepherding Justin is Justin - he doesn't listen to bishops, etc.

I think the matter here is Justin has arrogated to himself the right to reject the commonly understood Orthodox communion (to which most of you belong or at least identify with), judging it as not orthodox, while either still claiming to be Eastern Orthodox himself or even that his favourite church or sect at the moment (he's changed his mind a few times in the past couple of years) is the only Orthodox church left on earth. Making the same historical mistake as the Russian Old Believers: those who won't learn from history, etc.

On the other hand, Serge, the actual history of the Church has not been as logical and orderly as you seem to present it.

Quote

I have no personal interest in Justin - I don't care for him online, have never met him and don't plan on meeting him. That said, underneath all his words the only person shepherding Justin is Justin - he doesn't listen to bishops, etc.

The group in Austin (St. Hilarion's Monastery) was there when I lived in Austin during the 1970s-1980s. They were started by former Episcopalians and former Catholics who simply "hung their shingle" labelled "Orthodox." The term "Orthodox" may not be copyrighted, and anybody on the planet legally may advertise his or her organization as "Orthodox Christian." (The priest mentioned below researched this question.)

For a while, they had a large photograph of the Patriarach of Antioch hanging in their vestibule, with the prominent label, "Our Patriarch." The Antiochian priest (of the parish I attended at the time) visited them in "plain clothes", and pleasantly invited them to open up about themselves. When they started talking about their "sister parish, St. _____", and referring to the photograph of the Patriarch of Antioch, Fr. ___ dropped his cover. He bluntly informed them that there was no "sister parish", and offered them a possible lawsuit unless they removed the labelled photograph. (They swiftly complied, I believe.)

The members of St. Hilarion Monastery waltzed through at least one Orthodox jurisdiction before landing in their present spot with the "Synod of Milan." Perhaps I am just remembering their incarnation as "Old Catholics."

The monastery in Blanco, Texas, also was started by "Orthodox wannabes." Before they went under the (legitimate) oversight of the ROCOR, they launched the most ludicrous Barnum-and-Bailey promotion of their alleged weeping icon. (I received some of their mailouts.)

I don't have any time whatsoever to post anything sensible but I noticed this topic while I was briefly checking our site.

The Orthodox Church does not say that Greek Old Calendarists are not Orthodox and that they are outside the Church. What is said is that they are in an irregular position akin to ROCOR. A cursory reading of the sources from the State Church of Greece when the schism occurred and to this day will show that is how they view Old Calendarists.

While communion with the "established" Church is certainly a big clue as to one's normalcy, you can't use that as an absolute yardstick with which to measure every group that doesn't fit that measurement.

I would welcome further discussion but will not be able to respond until Aug 18 when I return from Slovakia.

In simple terms, the status of a body as Orthodox, fundamentally boils down to whether or not they are in fact Orthodox. That may sound odd, but it's amazing how neat, quasi-Papist ecclessiologies typically miss this fundamental point. Besides Orthodoxy of faith, canonicity of foundation is almost as important (though not as, since even this in some measure can be qualified, as history demonstrates.)

In "good times" (which if you look at the record, doesn't really comprise much of the Church's history), perhaps pointing to the larger, more or less "monied" and secularly favoured institutions which identify themselves as "the Church" is a safe bet, and requires little if any further inquiry.

Unfortunately, such superficial estimations are not always indicative of reality. Simply pointing to "communion with this or that Patriarch" in troubled times solves nothing, and as history would instruct us (since some here seem very big on learning the lessons of history) would often have put one in league with heresiarchs (bearing in mind that several occupents of the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople have been heretics, as was at least one Pope of Rome prior to the schism of 1054, etc.) Such appeals to mere "officialdom" then, or even "majority rules" would have been futile - and obviously all of these blaspheming players, would have insisted they were the Church, and those who would have nothing to do with them were the ones in err, and would have kindly dubbed them as "schismatics" or "rogue clergy."

This is not to say that it cannot be that the "odd men out" are in fact simply rogue clergy, or schisms. That does, and has certainly happened. However, what I can say, is that unlike in Roman Catholicism (where being out of step with the Pope and those in his communion is a sentence in itself), Orthodoxy knows of no intrinsic power, in the act of being in communion with this or that diocese of Patriarchate, to render one "Orthodox."

Well, I've heard this phrase used by authors who I know are in communion with ROCOR and who are ROCOR clergy themselves - in fact, a birdy told me you yourself (strictly speaking) are a cleric in ROCOR (a Reader.)

Quote

think the matter here is Justin has arrogated to himself the right to reject the commonly understood Orthodox communion (to which most of you belong or at least identify with), judging it as not orthodox, while either still claiming to be Eastern Orthodox himself or even that his favourite church or sect at the moment (he's changed his mind a few times in the past couple of years) is the only Orthodox church left on earth. Making the same historical mistake as the Russian Old Believers: those who won't learn from history, etc.

...or he could be like lots of other confused Orthodox in troubled times, just trying to make his way with a clean conscience. Yes, there have been "Old Believer" style situations a plenty; but then again, there were also "Arian/Semi-Arian" style situations as well.

While I'm not sure what final conclusions Paradosis has made (if he has), I do agree with him on one thing - there is a heretical ecumenism which is endemic in much of "Orthodox officialdom", and it goes unpunished; can we take that lack of punishment as an endorsement? IT's hard not to, when the perpetraitors themselves bare Patriarchal title.

While you may not agree that such a heresy exists, obviously your Church (or so I was told) does - ROCOR anathematized it in 1983, and that Synodal anathema appears in the list ROCOR condemns every year on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, alongside Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc.

Quote

God as He shows Himself in His creation is logical and orderly.

Unfortunately, people are not - and discerning who is who, can be a difficult thing. I do agree though, God eventually sorts it out with us (though rarely without us.)

Quote

Necessary to see 'where he's coming from' to understand his opposition to the commonly understood Orthodox Church.

Perhaps - so I imagine you will object in no wise to my indication of your ecclessiastical affiliations and clerical status, right? Btw., I find it very odd that a clergyman would not identify himself as such when dealing with others, particularly Orthodox on an Orthodox forum.

The Orthodox Church does not say that Greek Old Calendarists are not Orthodox and that they are outside the Church. What is said is that they are in an irregular position akin to ROCOR. A cursory reading of the sources from the State Church of Greece when the schism occurred and to this day will show that is how they view Old Calendarists.

While communion with the "established" Church is certainly a big clue as to one's normalcy, you can't use that as an absolute yardstick with which to measure every group that doesn't fit that measurement.

That doesn't make any sense unless one accepts the Western theology of 'validity' outside the bounds of one's church, which many Orthodox don't.

Or if the group in question is still somehow in communion with the Orthodox via ROCOR, which makes them schismatic vis-+ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¡-vis the Church of Greece but still Orthodox.

Or if one sees them the way the Old Believers historically see themselves, as all that's left of the church on earth. (I understand these Greek Old Calendarist sects have schismed among themselves over recognizing grace in the actual Orthodox churches.)

Augustine, what I wrote to and re: Justin I think applies about as well to you. Seems like you've already prepared an argument to leave ROCOR and the Orthodox communion when your church unites with the Church of Russia, which I think is a matter of when, not if.

It's true that communion with any one diocese or patriarch doesn't define membership in the fellowship of the church for the Orthodox (unlike the way communion with Rome defines full churchness for RCs) - but membership in the whole Orthodox communion does.

That doesn't make any sense unless one accepts the Western theology of 'validity' outside the bounds of one's church, which many Orthodox don't.

...unless one accepts as possible the temporary reality of groups that are genuinely Orthodox not being in communion with one another, due to the chaos and confusion created by heresies. That certainly has happened, even between great Saint-Confessors. The situation of St.Cyril of Jerusalem comes to mind (some confessors accepted him as a confessor and genuine Bishop; some did not.)

Quote

Or if the group in question is still somehow in communion with the Orthodox via ROCOR, which makes them schismatic vis-+ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¡-vis the Church of Greece but still Orthodox.

And ROCOR is only "Orthodox", because it's in communion with the JP and the Serbs (though the latter is somewhat tenuous, even in recent years; but generally it is the case, despite unfortunate statements made by Patriarch Pavle after being bullied by Alexis II of Moscow)?

Quote

Or if one sees them the way the Old Believers historically see themselves, as all that's left of the church on earth. (I understand these Greek Old Calendarist sects have schismed among themselves over recognizing grace in the actual Orthodox churches.)

While the comparison with Old Believers is sufficiently inflamatory, if one actually thinks about the substance of the comparison it is apparent that it's a useless one; by definition any genuine Orthodox body (even as you define this) are the "last Orthodox on earth."

You are correct though, there have been unfortunate schisms amongst the Old Calendarists. Some of this I attribute to sin, though I think a good measure of it is due to the confusing circumstances of the present situation and the different appraisals that can flow from it; in short, just how far gone are those Churches involved in ecumenism? While I think the more extreme Old Calendarists err in their zeal, I think both history and God are going to judge them better than the ecumenists, who I am confident will be synodally condemned in the future (since it's quite manifest their activities do not simply violate the letter of the canons, but their very spirit; they are not practicing love toward our heterodox friends, but a syncretism which only confirms them in falsehood.)

Converts like you, who bring up people's background so as to slight them, and put them in a bad light (I admit, often a far easier tactic than reasoning)?

Quote

I don't represent myself online as a reader.

You're talking about it like it's a big bad secret, akin to the revelation that your grandparents were first cousins or you'd been in rehab or something like this. Unless you're trying to tell me what I was told in passing is completly incorrect, and you in fact are not a clergyman.

Quote

I don't represent ROCOR.

Because you are not a member of ROCOR, right? Otherwise, I find some of the things you write utterly incomprehensible.

Quote

I don't represent the Orthodox communion - I simply describe it when appropriate as accurately as possible, as with anything else I write.

In other words, we should regard what you write the same way we might regard something written by an Anglican or a Roman Catholic on the Orthodox Church - a detached appraisal, all the while not having tasted of Her essence or lived in Her embrace?

And ROCOR is only "Orthodox", because it's in communion with the JP and the Serbs (though the latter is somewhat tenuous, even in recent years; but generally it is the case, despite unfortunate statements made by Patriarch Pavle after being bullied by Alexis II of Moscow)?

Affirmative.

Quote

While the comparison with Old Believers is sufficiently inflam[m]atory

Homer J. Simpson: 'It's so funny because it's true.'

Quote

Converts like you, who bring up people's background so as to slight them, and put them in a bad light (I admit, often a far easier tactic than reasoning)?

Like I said, I don't claim to speak for the Orthodox so the 'convert' thing is irrelevant. Reasoning shows that Justin's position doesn't make any sense. I only brought up converts because ISTM you're another example of a convert who's rude. (If I knew this forum would end up being 'Indiana List Mk II' I never would have signed on.)

Quote

Otherwise, I find some of the things you write utterly incomprehensible.

Fine with me.

Quote

In other words, we should regard what you write the same way we might regard something written by an Anglican or a Roman Catholic on the Orthodox Church

Obviously, we're just going to have to disagree. Unless something changes, I think all that needs to be said in this exchange (between you and I) has been said. With that, I'd be honoured if you'd have the last word.

The Church, in a word, is an Orthodox bishop with an Orthodox flock living their Orthdodox life in Christ as they attempt to work out their salvation.

But, um, while it may be possible for a bishop to separate himself from a church which has (in his view) become heretical, the canonical requirements for consecration mean that bishops, to be bishops, cannot arise out of nowhere. That's the sign of the problem with "continuing" Anglicans: they cannot summon up the requisite three, so the consecrations remain suspicious.

Likewise, in practice one would have to question whether a bishop who insisted on separation from the main thread of Orthodoxy could really avoid heresy. One would have to suspect that the principle behind the separation would be, most likely, an error.

I couldn't agree more. Canonicity is not determined by whom you are in communion with. I think the Church proved that about 1000 years ago ;^). Canonicity is obedience to the canons. The Charism of the Episcopate is necessary, in that the Bishop, occupying the place of Peter (according to St. Cyprian) is the fountainhead of the Mysteries.

I will defend the Synod of Milan as Orthodox for the following reasons:1)Legitimate Apostolic succession of its Bishops2)It has not been anathematized by any Orthodox Churches3)It is Orthodox in its faith and practice

This neo-papal-patriarchalism ignores Church history! Large segments of the Church were out of communion with each other for long periods of time. This is the Body's way of defending itself against heresy... like an immuno-reaction or something.

I will defend the Synod of Milan as Orthodox for the following reasons:

1)Legitimate Apostolic succession of its Bishops

Well, it's plain that this point is disputed. I can't find the place where this is documented on-line, but from what Serge says, this claim is about as plausible is that of any random continuing Anglican church, none of which can be traced to sitting bishops in Anglican churches.

This neo-papal-patriarchalism ignores Church history! Large segments of the Church were out of communion with each other for long periods of time.

Ah, but that's a different situation. It's one thing for ROCOR to be not in communion with, say, the MP. It's another thing to try and create a new church out of questionable bishops, and that's what you are trying to defend. This gets rather Methodist, or maybe Lutheran, but it's definitely fringy episcopal polity.

Well I'm laboring under the assumption that ROCA's Bishops did in fact ordain the SoM's Bishops. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

But that's also a good question... under what conditions does the grace of the Episcopacy depart? Does it take a Church-wide anathema? A simple deposition by the Synod? This is a good question, because there were times in Church History when Bishops were uncanonically deposed, like during the Robber Council of Ephesus.

I'm certain that the Church has answered these questions, and I suppose I'll have to ask my spiritual father.

Well I'm laboring under the assumption that ROCA's Bishops did in fact ordain the SoM's Bishops. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

I'm not speaking for any of the churches in question but if I recall rightly that's correct, but it doesn't matter, because although the SoM were in the Orthodox communion when ROCA did that, they are outside the Orthodox communion now.

Quote

But that's also a good question... under what conditions does the grace of the Episcopacy depart? Does it take a Church-wide anathema? A simple deposition by the Synod? This is a good question, because there were times in Church History when Bishops were uncanonically deposed, like during the Robber Council of Ephesus.

I think the answer in this context (Eastern Orthodoxy, which has the power of the keys, regarding the sacraments and the grace in them, over its own people) is the last - simple deposition by a synod. In this case, breaking communion with ROCA whilst not being in communion with any other Orthodox church means not being Orthodox anymore.

Of course the classic Orthodox answer regarding non-Orthodox including these former Orthodox is 'only God knows if these bishops still have grace'. But functionally the Orthodox treat them like they don't - unless they go back to the Orthodox communion.

Again, membership doesn't hang on intercommunion only with Constantinople or any other particular Orthodox see but rather on intercommunion somehow with the communion as the communion (which happens to include Constantinople but doesn't have to).

Statement of Archbishop John [LoBue] concerning 2005 letter spreading throughout the Internet

"Recently there has been a letter purporting to come from the Milan Synod in 2005, concerning questions about ecumenism.

"The letter in question was originally written by one bishop of the Milan Synod who is no longer with the Synod, it has never been presented for a vote by the Bishops of the Milan Synod and therefore has never been adopted as a policy of the Milan Synod. The Synod remains committed to its stance against ecumenism, and a new statement regarding the continuance of that policy is being prepared and will be presented shortly. -- Archbishop John"

The Encyclical (see attachment) appears to teach the Branch Theory of the Church and was issued and signed by Metropolitan Evloghios, Primate of the Milan Synod and has his seal affixed. It has been described last week as heretical by two Milan clergyman and one (the deacon of Archbishop John (LoBue, of New York) has announced he will not attend services where the Metropolitan is commemorated until the matter is investigated.

While much scholarship and research into history has been done in the last century, it has become all too easy to assert new ideas that are not a part of the theological beliefs of the Holy Orthodox Church as in fact representative' of earlier Orthodox understandings of belief. These new erroneous interpretations of theology have been spread by many sources coming from outside the Orthodox Church, including the forces of certain German Protestant theologians as well as the false scholarship of the Jesuit schools that are committed to reconciling the Orthodox Churches with the - political assertions and agendas of the Papal hierarchy. Thus today we must go beyond the standard conciliar statements condemning Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysiticism to include even the veiled hidden assertions of Adoptionism and Monothelitism that still remain popularly held by many today even though they were fully denounced at the Ecumenical Councils.

For this reason, it has become all the more urgent to assert that the theological position of the Orthodox Patriarchates, including the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as it was kept preserved• up to and including the first two decades of the Twentieth Century must be reaffirmed as the standard of the under-standing of Orthodoxy even up to the present time. Anything that has been developed as additional theories or understandings since that time, that in any way run counter to this, must be considered initially as suspect, and can only be properly evaluated by a preponderance of evidence derived from all sources of Orthodox theological discussion and thereupon blessed by the universal conscience of the Orthodox hierarchy.

Thus when we identify ourselves as Traditional Orthodox it is with such a definition in mind, and where other forms of theological speculation have influenced any of us in the past few decades, it has become essential for us now to distance ourselves from such theological speculation.

Having said this, there is at no time a legitimate reason for us to disassociate ourselves from the very principles of Christian charity that are at the very root of the Gospel of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that have been the underlying principles of Christian reconciliation all through the eras of the recognized Seven Ecumenical Councils that in their decrees and canons remain for us the source of the specific statements of our Orthodox belief and praxis. Therefore, let us always treat with charity and the utmost courtesy even those that we disagree with, whether they be Orthodox Christians or not, even as we explain in detail our reasons for separating ourselves from their theological positions. For only for this reason can we truly manifest a love for their souls, and thus plead with our Divine Lord and Saviour to help us to bring about their eternal salvation together with that of our own and that of the souls of the Orthodox that God has placed under our guidance.

In Aquileia, See of Saint Cromatios and Saint Paulinus, Patriarch--Milan, See of Saint Ambrosius in the month of October, 2010,

While much scholarship and research into history has been done in the last century, it has become all too easy to assert new ideas that are not a part of the theological beliefs of the Holy Orthodox Church as in fact representative' of earlier Orthodox understandings of belief. These new erroneous interpretations of theology have been spread by many sources coming from outside the Orthodox Church, including the forces of certain German Protestant theologians as well as the false scholarship of the Jesuit schools that are committed to reconciling the Orthodox Churches with the - political assertions and agendas of the Papal hierarchy. Thus today we must go beyond the standard conciliar statements condemning Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysiticism to include even the veiled hidden assertions of Adoptionism and Monothelitism that still remain popularly held by many today even though they were fully denounced at the Ecumenical Councils.

For this reason, it has become all the more urgent to assert that the theological position of the Orthodox Patriarchates, including the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as it was kept preserved• up to and including the first two decades of the Twentieth Century must be reaffirmed as the standard of the under-standing of Orthodoxy even up to the present time. Anything that has been developed as additional theories or understandings since that time, that in any way run counter to this, must be considered initially as suspect, and can only be properly evaluated by a preponderance of evidence derived from all sources of Orthodox theological discussion and thereupon blessed by the universal conscience of the Orthodox hierarchy.

Thus when we identify ourselves as Traditional Orthodox it is with such a definition in mind, and where other forms. of theological speculation have influenced any of us in the past few decades, it has become essential for us now to distance ourselves from such theological speculation.

Having said this, there is at no time a legitimate reason for us to disassociate ourselves from the very principles of Christian charity that are at the very root of the Gospel of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that have been the underlying principles of Christian reconciliation all through the eras of the recognized Seven Ecumenical Councils that in their decrees and canons remain for us the source of the specific statements of our Orthodox belief and praxis. Therefore, let us always treat with charity and the utmost courtesy even those that we disagree with, whether they be Orthodox Christians or not, even as we explain in detail our reasons for separating ourselves from their theological positions. For only for this reason can we truly manifest a love for their souls, and thus plead with our Divine Lord and Saviour to help us to bring about their eternal salvation together with that of our own and that of the souls of the Orthodox that God has placed under our guidance.

In Aquileia, See of Saint Cromatios and Saint Paulinus, Patriarch--Milan, See of Saint Ambrosius in the month of October, 2010,

[ signed ]+EvloghiosArchbishop of MilanMetropolitan of AquiliaPrimate

Did you copy this from another Web site? If so, we need you to give us a link to this site. Thank you.

In Milan, Italy on February 14/27, Archbishop John (LoBue) of New York, who has been leading the American Church of the so-called Milan Synod alone for sometime now, had been elevated to the rank of Metropolitan of North and South America. His elevation likewise accompanies the independence of the Anglo-American Dioceses from the Milan Synod as The Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles. The Anglo-American Church returns to its original independence. Prior to their merger in the Milan Synod in 1997 this same local Church was a Western Rite jurisdiction with an autocephaly given by the EP in the early 1970s as facilitated by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Exile. This new Metropolia has been a leader in traditional form of the Western Rite with a fair number of Eastern Rite missions and kellions. Two monastic priests were elected as vicar-Bishops to assist Metropolitan John. Vicar Bishop Fanourios (Michael) of Lincoln was consecrated during the week in Milan. Archimandrite Michael (Acosta) of Kissismmee Skete of the Holy Royal Martyrs will be consecrated at a later date.

So the 31 parishes, missions, and monastic communities together with their three hierarchs will be a sister church to the Milan Synod in Western Europe and the synod it's in communion with in Greece?

The website lists these 2 Churches and a solitary bishop in Bukovina

Bulgarian Old Calendar Orthodox Church Metropolitan Chrysostomos (Celi-Alemeida) of Ecuador and all-Latin America has joined the GOC's Church of Hellas Barsanuphius (Sopolov) Archbishop of Chernovtsy, Herta, and Northern Bukovina. GOC's Church of Hellas

That interested me as well on this particular website! I've followed the Milan Synod from afar for quite some time now, but had never seen references to either the Bukovinans or the Bulgarians - I was under the impression that virtually all the Old Calendrists in Bulgaria were with the Cyprianites (as in Romania).

That interested me as well on this particular website! I've followed the Milan Synod from afar for quite some time now, but had never seen references to either the Bukovinans or the Bulgarians - I was under the impression that virtually all the Old Calendrists in Bulgaria were with the Cyprianites (as in Romania).

I was under the impression that virtually all the Old Calendrists in Bulgaria were with the Cyprianites (as in Romania).

Not all, but most Old Calendar Bulgarians are part of the Bulgarian Old Calendar Orthodox Church headed by Bishop Photios, they are in communion with the Cyprianites (and once used to be in communion with the ROCOR).

In addition there are a few Old Calendar parishes in Bulgaria which are part of the canonical Bulgarian Orthodox Church - the Bulgarian Patriarchate. (I think most Old calendar parishes in the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Patriarchate are in the USA and are convert parishes).